The Conspiracy Chicks G-20 Misinfo or Disinfo?

Alright folks, I know its been a while, but I just needed to bring this up for discussion.

This being my first time back to ATS in a while, I figured I'd check out the new video section. While watching "The Conspiracy Chicks: Pilot Episode
0.2f" media.abovetopsecret.com...

I noticed some mind-boggling errors in their title story - G-20 Agents Provocateurs. Being a Canadian (yeah yeah yeah

) this story was of
particular interest to me since this happened in my country, to my people (including some personal friends), and the whole thing was used as an excuse
to spend $930 million of our taxpayer's money on security alone for the 3 day summit (for reference, the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh last year only
cost $12.2 million USD (around $14-15 million CAD) for security).

The first minute or so of the report (starting at around 4:00 on the video) goes along fine, showing some photos and a video clip from the Toronto
G-20 protests. The main premise of this story (and the hook that reeled me in) was the claim that police provocateurs had been confirmed to be
involved in these protests. "G20 Police Hire Provacateurs - Undercover Agents Among the Protestors (sic)" was the tagline at the bottom of the
screen. The host then goes on to summarize the story by stating (at 4:20.... yeah yeah yeah again

) that: "What essentially went down is that
undercover agents operating under the guise of being regular protesters engaged in acts of vandalism and inciting others to violence". Oh man, just
the proof I've been waiting for!

Then, at around 4:40 they play a video clip (which is from the Toronto G-20 protests, and which I'd seen before) which, according to the host,
"clearly" showed numerous "undercover plain-clothed officers" running (and being allowed) through a line of uniformed officers, apparently after
"their identity is exposed". Holy crap! That's a lot of them (like 15-20+ in this short and narrow viewpointed clip) and they are all literally
plain-clothed, with no masks, bandanas, etc to conceal their identities.

All right, well they've apparently been exposed and identified as police officers, and we've seen some of the bad things that some of the
protester's have done, lets get to the meat of the issue, the proof, the smoking gun! This apparently comes at around 4:50, where a "new" image is
displayed, depicting uniformed riot cops arresting "Black Bloc" protesters who are clearly wearing the EXACT SAME boots as the officers arresting
them. Now this is gonna be hard to disprove! But, there's something familiar about this photo which I just can't place....

At 4:55 my Canuck sense starts tingling. The caption: "Quebec Provincial Police - Busted Protestors Wears the Same Boots (sic)" appears across the
bottom of the screen. Quebec provincial police....? That's strange... The protest happened in Toronto, ONTARIO, not in Quebec... I mean, I know they
bring in cops from all over the country to get their chance to play citizen whack-a-mole without consequence but it seems strange that the arresting
officers were identified specifically as Quebec provincial police, especially given their standardized riot gear and near lack of any form of
identification. Must've been the accents...

It continues. Apparently, because of all this, the Quebec provincial police actually had to apologize to the public for employing these agents
provocateurs. Now this sounded strangely familiar to me as well, yet I knew I hadn’t read or heard anything about that in the last two weeks. It
also seemed quite odd and begged further investigation, if for no other reason than why the hell would the Quebec provincial police take all the blame
and publicly apologize for the use of provocateurs at a protest which took place in Ontario and which had over 19,000 police officers from all over
Canada at it. Besides all this I wanted the proof that had been promised to me that the police used agents provocateurs at the Toronto G-20 protest so
that I could then go on to write and speak about such an abuse of power without being labelled, well, a liar.

Then it all sort of came together for me: The whole Quebec provincial police thing (ie: matching boots and public admission of guilt, etc) had
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the whole Toronto G-20 thing (other than being another case of police brutally crushing free speech and free assembly of
course

). This is because the whole Quebec provincial police thing happened THREE YEARS AGO at a protest against the Security and Prosperity
Partnership (SPP, not G-20) that took place in, you guessed it, Montebello, QUEBEC!
www.cbc.ca...

So, to sum it all up, the Conspiracy Chicks story on the G-20 was a complete fabrication based on mixing a few photos and a video clip (which could,
theoretically, show what they said it showed) from the recent Toronto G-20 protest and a legitimate story of police abuse of power that happened a few
hundred miles away in a different province and, uh, a different decade. Deny ignorance, right?

Now, let me be clear. I am certainly no police or government apologist and I have my own suspicions (well-founded I may add as the Quebec case
suggests) that the police did in fact use agents provocateurs as well as other illegal and/or immoral tactics at this most recent G-20 meeting. That
is not the point. Frankly, I shouldn’t even have to state the point. Furthermore, there is already tons of video, photos, etc from the Toronto G-20
protest which depict undeniable cases of police malfeasance such as: (1) legitimate, credentialed journalists being beaten, having equipment stolen
and being arrested and removed, (2) of mounted police (no not the real Mounties, at least as far as I know

) knocking over and near-trampling a
protester, (3) arrested female protesters being strip searched (including fingers up their vaginas) by male police officers as well as being
threatened with sexual assault and rape and (4) of allowing a police car which had been lit on fire to rage out of control for nearly an hour so that
all the newspapers and newscasts could have a Dark Knight-esque backdrop for their coverage of the protests, to name but a few. Not to mention the
rather suspicious fact that even though the police seemed to be in fine brutality form when dealing with peaceful protesters and reporters, they were
either just sitting back and watching or nowhere to be found when the “Black Bloc anarchists” were trashing buildings and lighting cars on fire.
But I suppose none of that is quite as scandalous as genuine agents provocateurs would have been.

However, as I said earlier, I am (re)new to the site and am unfamiliar with the Conspiracy Chicks or their show's format. If they are simply reading
off other members' posts to highlight what is going on around ATS then this was likely just a regrettable mistake and will hopefully be corrected in
an upcoming episode. Yet, even if this was simply an oversight, it seems a rather embarrassing one given how easily the mistake could (and should)
have been discovered. I shudder to think how many truth seekers out there took the story for granted and are now out there repeating this
(dis/mis)information only to prove themselves (and, by extension, their arguments/beliefs) foolish.

And, to the Conspiracy Chicks themselves, I do not mean this as any sort of personal attack or even to discourage your show. All I ask is that you
check your facts more diligently in the future and present things which have not been proven as possibilities or potentialities rather than cold hard
facts. As purveyors of information you have a responsibility to not misinform your audience. This sort of situation is what one might expect from the
MSM. Somewhat ironically, however, more is expected of people like you in the “alternative media”, if for no other reason than that you are
posting on a site whose motto is “deny ignorance”.

For further Toronto G20 material (including some evidence that there were in fact agents provocateurs but, alas, no proof) and some more on the
Montebello agents provocateurs, check these vids out:

It doesn't surprise me. ATS has become so mainstream that the reports on here are mirroring the MSM... sensationalist fabrications built around a
picture or two with the aim of increasing, dare I say it... fear?
Shame.

Yes, they blew that bit about the agents in boots. However the preceding video showing plain clothes police running behind police lines is all the
evidence I need to know that the accusation is true regarding agents provacateurs at the Toronto G20 summit. They should have checked that out before
they included it in their video, I agree.
As for the burning police cars that is an old tactic - to abandon a car and allow the violent protesters to work off steam and possibly record them
for later arrest. It also gives the media their little dog and pony show so that the PTB can claim the protesters were violent.
I'm sure the Conspiracy Chicks will do better next time. You are absolutely correct to point that out to all the ATS membership. That's what keeps
us honest and help establish trust among the members.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Yes, they blew that bit about the agents in boots. However the preceding video showing plain clothes police running behind police lines is all the
evidence I need to know that the accusation is true regarding agents provacateurs at the Toronto G20 summit. They should have checked that out before
they included it in their video, I agree.

But, you see this is exactly part of the problem I'm talking about. As far as I know (and please do correct me if I am wrong) there is no evidence
WHATSOEVER that those people were in fact undercover police. That seems to just be a claim made up by the Conspiracy Chicks based on the conclusion
they had already reached that agents provocateurs had been admitted to by the police, etc (which is false as I showed in the OPs).

Again, perhaps we all have very good reasons to SUSPECT that agents provocateurs were used, but as of yet we still have no proof.

It would appear you have done some very good research my friend! Bravo for that. I believe this would fall under the Misinfo category. What would be
the the advantage of claiming the police were from Quebec instead of from all over Canada (or anywhere for that matter)?

I think this was a mis understanding as opposed to deliberate dis-info, and I think it is important for the girls to acknowledge this in a further
episode, or possibly a post.

Let's give the girls a break, they are still in the developmental phase of their show. I know I couldn't do a better job.

Hey Guys. It was 95% my fault so I'll explain what happened. Yes, it was an error on my part. This is the back story if it helps clear things up.

Of course, as you know, the basic premise of the CC show is to highlight member topics and add some additional research. Contrary to what some may
assume, the show will not be limited to ATS so this is a way to take the topics discussed on ATS to a broader audience and acknowledge the thread
authors who start various topics (Although the current soft launches are only for ATS to help us get our feet wet).

So when it came to this specific subject, I was multi-tab browsing between about 5 ATS threads on the topic and then an additional 5 tabs or so for
external sources for the G-20 segment. Some of the threads and sources had things a bit muddled where they, too, got the older incident confused with
the newer riots. So I knew I had to be very careful to make a distinction between past and present images and details.

Anyways, after all of that, I still confused things and I was very frustrated with myself. If you notice in the other segments, I like to add a
historical perspective to pieces. For example, with the Chicago gun control issue, I tied it into the past Washington DC gun control 2nd amendment
supreme court interpretation. Or with the illegal immigration issue and how the federal government could possibly overturn the Arizona bill the way
they overturned the California vote in 1994.

So that is what I was trying to do with this segment as well but completely botched the presentation when it came to explaining things. Just an
unfortunate error for a soft launch and my fault.

It's the same reason I passed on the idea to cover the UFO sighting that closed down the airports in China. Interesting topic and I really want to
discuss it but if you go and look through the 4 threads on it or so, you'll see almost every source (including a known hoax source) all present
different alleged images for the sighting and there is, again, some confusion on the locations as well.

Things happen and you have to watch out for it. But it was an error on my part. I was sick with a stomach virus the first couple of days the show was
released and didn't even know what happened. Once I was feeling better and logged on to see it, after noticing what I did, I wanted to throw my
computer out the window and bury myself in a hole. lol

So that's that. We did clarify things a bit, though. If you go back and watch the show, you'll see the subtitles on the bottom explain the
differences.

Hope that helps explain some things. It was a soft launch and I'm glad to have made that mistake now instead of later. Apologies about that from me
to all of you.

I say it's better to make mistakes earlier than later. Your both human beings, we all make mistakes some times...so why shouldn't you? Nothing's
perfect (except for my cookies) so don't sweat it. We understand. Now just hurry up with the next one

Thank you! I agree with your sentiments completely. As a bit of background to this topic, I had watched this video (and noticed the huge mistake) on
the same day that I had listened to a local radio program which Alex Jones had called in to (for a scheduled interview) and had made some of his own
ridiculously unfounded comments (again as far as I can tell anyways). I had originally intended to make a larger topic including both the Conspiracy
Chicks and Alex Jones examples, because I was sort of punched in the face with the realization that essentially everything I had ever taken for
granted from any alternative source was suspect at best. Ultimately, this means that anyone who truly wants to get to the bottom of things needs to do
their own individual research on everything, calling in to question what these alternative news sources' purpose or value even is. If everyone has to
go and research everything completely on their own as well, what's the point of having someone who summarizes/presents stuff to you?

For anyone interested, the Alex Jones thing I mentioned above was his repeated claim to the hosts (who never really got to correct him since he
basically ranted nonstop for the whole half hour he was on) that Queen Elizabeth 2 of England had "activated" her agent, the Governor General, to
shut down parliament and essentially suspend democracy temporarily. Yes, the Canadian parliament has been prorogued (shut down temporarily) twice now
in the last year or two, and yes the Governor General (who is, technically, the Queen's representative in Canada) was who ultimately made the
decision (as I'm pretty sure the Governor General is the only person in Canada with the power to prorogue parliament) but that's about where the
similarity stops.

What did happen was that our Prime Minister (Stephen Harper) petitioned the Governor General (who is actually appointed by the Prime Minister) to
prorogue parliament for him on both occasions. The first incidence happened when the opposition parties attempted to form a coalition to become the
new government (as Harper only has a minority government, meaning that the opposition parties actually represent the majority of Canadians - in this
case over 60% of us). Harper had it shut down essentially so that he could remain in power. The second incidence was this past winter/spring when a
scandal was starting to break concerning Canadian soldiers' involvement in and knowledge of torture and other crimes against humanity in Afghanistan.

Now, perhaps, the Queen did in fact order this and what I said above is just the official cover story, but I have seen no evidence of that nor does it
even make much sense. Harper and his party were essentially the sole beneficiaries of these actions and besides, why would the Queen need to step in
and order something that the Prime Minister can do for himself as long as the Governor General doesn't oppose him? Anyway, I suppose that's another
topic....

Here is a link to the radio show that I'm talking about (Alex Jones is in the second half and ironically the first half is dedicated to discussing
one of the co-hosts' experience at the Toronto G-20 protests):

Also, for any Americans or others a little confused, proroguing parliament is the rough equivalent in Canada to if the President unilaterally shut
down Congress and the Senate temporarily so that he just didn't have to deal with them.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Hey Guys. It was 95% my fault so I'll explain what happened. Yes, it was an error on my part.

Hope that helps explain some things. It was a soft launch and I'm glad to have made that mistake now instead of later. Apologies about that from me
to all of you.

Thank you AshleyD for clearing that up! It takes real guts and a certain strength of character to admit and apologize when you've made a mistake. I
only wish there were more people like you willing to "man up" to their own mistakes. Keep on denying ignorance!

That was my first video that i watched here at ATS, i knew immediately they had their facts wrong and they had really no proof, just insinuations,
that cops provoked bad things to happen.

Fact is, the protestors wore cop boots and hats to make people believe they were undercover, and in recent reports anyone dressed like that was proven
not to be a cop in our Official Canadian News.
As for the boots being proof? I have boots like that and im not a cop, they are very easy to find boots that many skinheads/emo's/bikers wear. So
thats just a bunch of crock.

After seeing the Conspiracy Chicks video i decided not to watch any videos at all here because they are made, no for investigative purposes to seek
truth, but to push an agenda they believe to be true, or to push an ATS agenda. This is not factional research, its based on posts people make.
It took me 10min to gather the facts i have about this, which is that cops did not provoke this or hire under cover's to incite rioting, so why they
couldn't of found that info while making the video is beyond me. To me it was all about sensationalizing what happened to prove that ATS' and its
members beliefs, are facts without providing facts as evidence.

The Conspiracy Chicks are a lame attempt at making this site more popular. Use pretty girls that can spew out conspiracy messages and TAS beliefs,
with their looks you will be mesmerized.
Exactly what the nightly news does. CONGRATS ATS, your now in the MSM Category.

Nothing personal against the girls themselves, i am sure you work hard. However, my first impression of the entire videos area is one of disgust. I
seek truth, not insinuations.
Since its admitted the video is wrong and many facts in the video have been proven as unfactual i think ATS is responsible for creating a new video,
that tells the truth and gives us the real facts, as to not mislead other new people coming here and claiming the Canadian Police did wrong, when in
fact their is no proof, but an abundance of proof many protester's were there to only provoke a riot. I am talking about videos the public submitted
and pictures they submitted showing other protesters destroying property and committing illegal acts without provocation.

Read some Canadian news papers, see it for yourself. Maybe even post the G-20 most wanted list, if truth, peace and justice is what your really
after.

Fact is, the protestors wore cop boots and hats to make people believe they were undercover, and in recent reports anyone dressed like that was proven
not to be a cop in our Official Canadian News.

It took me 10min to gather the facts i have about this, which is that cops did not provoke this or hire under cover's to incite rioting, so why they
couldn't of found that info while making the video is beyond me.

Now see, here's the other side of the coin. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your post but you seem to be making the same sort of unfounded claim just in
the opposite direction. If there is any PROOF (not, you know, claims by the police chief or other people with "slight" conflicts of interest) that
there were in fact no agents provocateurs then please share it with us.

The fact of the matter remains that even if no agents provocateurs were used at this particular event, they have been used before and there is proof
(via news reports, video and photo evidence, witnesses, etc etc) that nearly every other form of police abuse imaginable WAS employed at this event.

Let us be clear, the Canadian police and government involved in this event are clearly guilty of a lot of very serious offences, the issue is just
exactly what and how many offences did they commit?

Fact is, the protestors wore cop boots and hats to make people believe they were undercover, and in recent reports anyone dressed like that
was proven not to be a cop in our Official Canadian News. As for the boots being proof? I have boots like that and im not a cop, they are very easy to
find boots that many skinheads/emo's/bikers wear. So thats just a bunch of crock.

Not quite. The 'boots incident' was the real deal which required an admission from the police that they did have undercover agents posing as
protesters.

Fact.

Protest organizers on Wednesday played the video for the media at a news conference in Ottawa. One of the organizers, union leader Dave Coles,
explained that one reason protesters knew the men's true identities was because they were wearing the same boots as other police officers.

Check out the source link for that one and how it goes back historically to connect the dots to the previous Quebec incident from 2007. That is how
the lines got crossed. I was trying to connect the 2 but instead blended it all together and made the error of presenting past and present as the
present.

So that is how it all went down. Your post is another example of just how easy it was to get the lines crossed. Make no mistake- the 'combat boots'
evidence was legit- just the incorrect event. And that was my fault.

Im sorry but the boots thing is not proof they were their to provoke anything at all. Undercover cops in a protest is common place done all around the
world.

How does wearing boots, or proving their was undercover police in the crowds proof of provocation in Toronto at the G20?

The whole Quebec story is not the issue here, that story is here due to your error and has nothing to do with the G20 story we speak of, so please
explain to me where its proven the cops at the G20 in Toronto were there to provoke and it wasn't just idiot protesters being stupid and immature?

I don't see that proof anywhere, i see biased opinion based on past historical data in a completely different province with a completely different
police force that speaks another language entirely!

Quebec and Toronto are TWO seperate places, they are two places that are pretty much rivals too, so to lump them together and insinuate that "if
quebec police did it why not toronto?"

I was trying to connect the 2 but instead blended it all together and made the error of presenting past and present as the present.

Exactly, your taking two events and lumping them together. Your apologizing but you have not said: "there is no proof that the cops planted
undercover agents to provoke riots".

So, yes. There were provocateurs. Where I goofed is that I botched the presentation and made it appear to all be one incident when they were
actually 2 separate incidents.

Where is this proof you keep talking of? Ive seen the videos and nothing is proven. Your taking 2 minute clips or longer to judge an almost all day
event. That is taking things out of context and you are not looking at the big picture.
Even the police you obviously don't believe in are taking their time investigating this and trying to get to the bottom of who did wrong and who will
be punished, they are investigating themselves even. Any accusation a cop provoked a riot or violence is investigated and reported locally.

A lot of the stories that came out on day 1 and day 2, have since been dis-proven. Go to the official news sites for Canada, like CBC, CTV, Global and
see for yourself.
Maybe you can use those as source material for the next video where you explain that you were wrong and present the real facts as they stand today.

I am not angry, i am disappointed that people don't give the cops the benefit of the doubt in some cases. Its immediate finger-pointing and a lot of
insinuations based on partial facts.

Get the whole view of things, get all the facts, then present it as truth. otherwise, its an opinion piece and that should be mentioned in the
video.

Another thing, humans are prone to mistakes, cops and protesters a like. To say the Police Departments planned to provoke the protesters is a big
accusation. One cops actions, that may not have been condoned by superiors is not proof the POLICE FORCE planned to be provokers as a whole. To say
otherwise is strictly opinion without facts.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Things happen and you have to watch out for it. But it was an error on my part. I was sick with a stomach virus the first couple of days the show was
released and didn't even know what happened. Once I was feeling better and logged on to see it, after noticing what I did, I wanted to throw my
computer out the window and bury myself in a hole. lol

So that's that. We did clarify things a bit, though. If you go back and watch the show, you'll see the subtitles on the bottom explain the
differences.

Hope that helps explain some things. It was a soft launch and I'm glad to have made that mistake now instead of later. Apologies about that from me
to all of you.

Well there we have it. The truth has been ferreted out and nobody's lost any appendages. Who's up for some beer pong?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.